I’ve been wanting to write something about the whole Kang Jeong-koo (강정구) affair for a while, but in true Korean style things keep happening so fast that every time I’m about to write I realise I have to read another stack of articles. So in the true tradition of blogging I’ve decided to offer a brief synopsis and some coverage of coverage (or commentary on the commentary on the coverage if you prefer).
So here’s my ultra brief version of the affair:
Leftwing professor at major Korean university declares in article on internet that the Korean War was a war for unification and that most Koreans wanted communism rather than capitalism. This provokes outcry from the right, leading to prosecution investigation under archaic National Security Law, which prohibits anything deemed to be an expression of support for ‘the enemy’ (that’s North Korea, please keep up). Then the twist: last week the justice minister of Roh Moo-hyun’s centre-liberal government overrules the chief prosecutor and orders that Kang should not be detained while he is investigated (as would normally be the case under the NSL). This leads to apoplexy among the prosecution (a privileged group in their own right) and the resignation of the the prosecutor general. Cue massive outrage from ‘conservative forces’ calling for a struggle to save the country, democracy and humanity in general from the Roh dictatorship.
Oranckay has a very worthwhile post on the latest developments.
On Antti’s Korean History course blog, he links to a whole load of material about this topic.
There have even been a couple of posts on this at the Marmot’s Hole, which predictably have brought forth some wonderful material from the irrepressible ‘Baduk’ in the comments section, complete with floridly violent descriptions of what he would like to do to Prof. Kang.
As for the newspapers, the Korea Times has provided one or two of its usual insightful editorials*. The paper did also have a halfway decent round up of the situation with some analysis of the underlying faultlines.
The Hankyoreh published an interview with Kang in which he clarifies his views. It’s in Korean, but someone thoughtfully provided a rough translation for the comments on the last Marmot post.
Oh My News reported on the broad support Kang received from his students at Dongguk University.
‘Commie’ internet newspaper Voice of People has had some funny cartoons on the story. My favourite:
The unseen handler urges the knackered old dog (representing the National Security Law) to “introduce yourself to the professor”.
Finally, my Jerry Springer-style wrap up:
Although I don’t agree with everything that Kang says myself, I do find the red-faced, blood-spitting state of apoplexy into which he sends rightwing Americans and Koreans rather amusing. Anyone would think they really felt threatened by this ageing academic. I also have to agree with the view, expressed eloquently in the latest issue of Ta Hamkke, that whether or not we agree with what Kang says, anyone who is in anyway progressive (or even liberal) must defend his right to free speech. It’s in all our interests. Simple as that.
To be honest, while there are things that I think Kang is just simply wrong on (basically his support for North Korea and his rosy view of Soviet imperialism), the comments which started this whole controversy are really not that controversial: Yes the Korean War was a war for unification from the point of view of the DPRK (what else could it have been?) and yes the majority of Koreans in the late 40s probably did envisage the future of their country in some way as socialist or communist (this was completely usual in countries where there had been a struggle for national liberation).
So what is this controversy really about? Basically what this is all about is the old Korean conservatives attempting to use a fairly minor issue to reestablish their hegemony over Korean politics, just as they tried (and failed) last year with the attempted impeachment of Roh. What they need to realise is that there is already a ‘new right’ in Korean politics. Just as in the UK where New Labour has taken the centre-right ground and demolished the Tories in the process, so the Roh government, as inept as it may be, reflects in my opinion a much more fundamental shift in Korean politics from an old establishment to a new one. There may be some differences with the new 386 generation elite, but basically they will represent the new, slightly more acceptable face of South Korean capital. They have been and will continue to be willing to help out the Americans when necessary (Iraq) and to crackdown on the labour movement when necessary to defend foreign and domestic capital. The only difference may be a slightly more independent foreign policy, but even that is a matter of debate.
*for the sake of clarity please note sarcasm intended here
